Memory

• Coding, capacity and duration of memory (A01)


  Coding-

  baddeley… gave different lists of words to four groups of participants to remember: group 1- acoustically similar; group 2- acoustically dissimilar; group 3- semantically dissimilar; group 4- semantically dissimilar. Participants were shown the original words and asked to recall them in the correct order- they did worse with acoustically similar words in STM and worse with semantically similar words in LTM. Meaning LTM is coded sematically.
• Coding, capacity and duration of memory (A01)

  Jacob’s and miller studied capacity=

  measured digit span. Asked to recall 4 digits and would ass a digit on each time until they couldn’t recall. Mean span =9.3, mean span for letters=7.3 he also found digit span increased with age. From that miller said memory could be increased with chunks= therefore 7+-2 held in STM.
• coding, capacity and duration of memory (A01)

  duration of STM (Peterson and peterson)=

  had to remember a trigram, asked to count back from a certain number and recall the trigram.(asked to count to prevent Maintenance rehearsal). Found duration was 18-30 seconds in STM.

  duration of LTM (bahrick)=

  Asked those if they could recognise high school yearbook photos. Participants who tested within 15 years of graduation remembered 90% accuratel. After 48years= 70%. Found duration could last a lifetime.
• Coding, capacity and duration of memory (A03)

  baddeley- doesn’t use meaningful words to participants/can’t generalise findings to other memory tasks/people may be able to code semantically for STM

  miller-overestimated the chunks/cowan looked at other research and concluded that the STM can only hold 4 chunks.

  jacobs- extraneous variables not controlled/those may have been distracted/ reducing validity

  petersons- doesn’t reflect real life situations/lacking external validity

  bahrick- High external validity (due to testing on real memory)
• The multi store memory model (A01)

  Sensory register= a stimulus will pass into it. 2 stores= iconic (visual) echoic (auditory), duration=half a second, capacity=very high, when paying more attention, it passes stimulus further into memory.

  STM=capacity(7=-2),coded(acoustically),duration(30s)

  maintenance rehearsal= occurs when we repeat material over and over again.prolonged intense rehearsal means it’ll pass into LTM.

  LTM=capacity/duration=unlimited,coded=sematically

  retrieval= recall info by passing it back into STM.

  
• multi store memory model (A03)


  there’s more than 1 STM=shallice + Warrington studied KF (had anaemia), found his memory for digit was poor when read out loud to him but recall better when he read them himself. meaning the unitary STM must be wrong, and there must be more than one to process visual and auditory.

  research support=HM, had surgery to cure epilepsy/had hippocampus removed. he couldn’t form LTM, but performed accurately on immediate recall tests, proves that LTM and STM are different stores.

  support research= baddeley (how STM/LTM diff stores/acoustic/semantic coding)
• Types of LTM (A01)


  Tulving=proposed three LTM stores:

  episodic= personal information/events, conscious recall, declarative(can be put into words).

  procedural= knowledge of how to do things (eg, walking), recalled unconsciously, non-declarative.

  sematic= knowledge of the world, such s what words or concepts mean, recalled consciously, declarative.
• Working memory model (A01)


  WMM- representation of STM

  Central executive=monitors incoming data and allocates tasks to the slave systems.

  Phonological loop= auditory data. Slit into 2 sections/ 1.phonological store, which stores words you hear/2. Articulately control system, which allows maintenance rehearsal(capacity=2secs)

  Visuo-spatial sketchpad= stores visual, capacity is 3/4 objects, split into 2 sections/1.visual cache, which stores visual data/2.inner scribe, which stores the arrangements of objects in a visual field.

  episodic buffer= added by baddeley,its a temporary store for info

  
• Working memory model (A03)

  Shallice and Warrington- KF, he had poor STM ability for remembering verbal information, but could recall visual info... meaning his phonological loop must of been damaged. This supports the two different systems for remembering acoustic and visual info.

  studies of duel task performance- baddeley showed participants struggled doing two visual tasks (follow a light and describe an F), this is because they work for the same slave system. Therefor participants were able to perform a visual and acoustic task together.
• Explanations of forgetting (A01)


  PROACTIVE INTERFERENCE- occurs when an old memory interferes with a new one.

  RETROACTIVE INTERFERENCE- occurs when a new memory interferes with an old memory.
• explanations of forgetting- interference (A01)

  mcgeoth and McDonald studied retroactive interference. participants had to lean a list of 10 words accurately. then learned a new list:

  group1-synonyms, group2-antonyms, group3-words unrelated to first list, group4- constant syllables, group5- three digit numbers, group6- no new list, just retested.

  findings- the most similar material(synonyms) had the worst recall. this shows interference is strongest when the memories are similar.
• Explanations for forgetting- interference (A03)


  evidence from lab studies- mcgeoth and McDonald’s study shows validity as it prevents any other distraction to cause forgetting; artificial stimuli- using word list for studies isn’t realistic to real life application therefore interference may not occur as easily in real life than it does in a lab environment ; interference effects can be reduced by cues.
• Explanations of forgetting- retrieval failure theory (A01)


  People forget due to insufficient cues(if the same cues aren’t their at recall, it causes forgetting)

  ENCODING SPECIFICITY PRINCIPLE- Cues are to be present when learning material (encoding) and recall (retrieval) if the cues are different or absent when recalling, there will be something forgotten.
• explanations of forgetting- types of retrieval failure (A01)


  Context dependent forgetting(external/environmental cues):

  godden and baddeley- in this study, scuba divers were asked to learn a list of words underwater or on land and then retrieve them underwater or on land.

  findings- accurate recall was 40% lower in non matching conditions. The external cues during learning were different to the ones when recalling- leading to retrieval failure.
• explanations of forgetting- types retrieval failure (A01)


  state-dependent forgetting(internal cues)

  Carter and cassaday- gave anti-histamine drugs (treat hay fever), creating an internal physiological state (drowsiness). 4 conditions:

  .Learn on drugs=recall not on drug

  .learn on drug= recall on drug

  .learn not on drug= recall not on drug

  .learn not on drug= recall on drug

  findings- in the conditions where there was a mismatch between internal state at learning and recall, the performance on the memory test was worse.
• Explanations of forgetting- retrieval failure

  (A03)

  Baddeley-different environments have to be dramatically different to cause forgetting. When learning something in one room and recalling it in another doesn’t often cause forgetting. this is a limitation of external cue effects=it doesn’t explain why we forget certain things in real life.

  Baddeley- replicated their underwater experiment but asked participants to do a recognition test-They found that the changing in environment didn’t have an effect on their recognition. Limitation- cues only effect memory when tested a certain way.
• Factors effecting eyewitness testimony- misleading information (A01)


  Loftus and palmer (leading questions)-the researcher showed 45 participants a seres of car crashes. Each group was asked a leading questions about the speed of the cars(how fast were the cars going when they ‘bumped’ into each other)for each group the verb was changed(smashed,collided,bumped,hit)

  findings- the estimate of speed varied depending on the verb used (eg, smashed was 41mph, and contacted was 32mph)

  lotus n plamer- second study, only used hit or smashed. the ones who read smashed later said they saw broken glass.
• EWT- misleading information (A01)


  post event discussion= when co-witnesses discuss what they witnessed beforehand, misleading information combines which alters their own memories.
• EWT- misleading information (A03)


  foster et al- foster found that if participants thought they were watching a real life robbery, and also thought there responses would influence a trial, their identification of the robber was more accurate= therefore misleading information doesn't always mean that accuracy is worse.

  loftus and palmer- artificial stimuli, getting participants to watch a crash on the clip doesn’t reflect real life. if people saw a crash in real life, other factors such as anxiety may of effected their recall instead.
• EWT- Anxiety has a NEGATIVE effect on recall (A01)


  JOHNSON AND SCOTT = Participants thought they were in a waiting room for a real study, they overheard a heated argument next door. In one situation a man walked out holding a pen with grease on it and the other was a guy walking out with a paper knife in blood. When asked to recall from photos- 49% recalled pen man, 33% recalled knife man.
• EWT- Anxiety has a POSITIVE effect on recall (A01)


  CHRISTIONSON AND HUBINEETTE= 110 victims of 22 real life back robberies were interviewed. The victims who were threatened were more accurate in recall off robbers clothes and behaviour, even after 15 months.
• EWT- anxiety (A01)

  yerkes-dodson law= lower anxiety is less accurate recall. Increasing in anxiety means more accurate recall until an optimum. After that the more anxiety they have the less accurate recall will be.
• EWT- anxiety (A03)


  weapon focus effect irrelevent= Johnson and Scott- participants may have payed more attention to the knife because it was unusual more than cause they were scared of it. Pickel- showed participants a hairdressing video where the hairdresser held either scissors, handgun or raw chicken. The participants paid more tension to the unusual objects- chicken and handgun.
• EWT- anxiety (A03)

  FEILD studies lack control- for example, christionson and hubinette interviewd real life eyewitnesses somtime after the event. This means here’s certain aspects that could affect the accuracy of recall, such as post event discussion, extraneous variables or things posted by media or police. Therefore its hard to know wether the anxiety they had effected their recall and not something that had happened post event.
• EWT- anxiety (A03)

  Demand characteristics in lab studies- those could possibly guess the aims of the study.

  they could also possibly focus more on the video to be able to answer questions more accurately for the experimenter.
• Improving accuracy of EWT- cognitive interview (A01)


  fisher and geiselman- argued EWT could be improved if police used better techniques for interviews. These are the 4 main techniques used:

  1. report everything 2. reinstate the context- imagine their environment in their mind from the crime. (related to connect dependent forgetting)

  3. reverse the order- to prevent people reporting there expectations of how the event must of happened instead of the actual events.

  4. change perspectives- to distrupt the expectations and schemes of what happens during a crime
• cognitive interview- enhanced (A01)

  fisher et al developed additional elects to the cognitive interview and interaction. for example the interviewer needs to know when to make eye contact and when to take it away. the enhanced cognitive interview also includes ides such as reducing anxiety minimising distractions, getting the witness to speak slowly and asking open ended questions.
• Cognitive interview (A03)


  Kohnken= a meta analysis of 53 studies found on average, an increase of 34% in the amount of correct information generated in the cognitive interview when compared to standard interviewing techniques. proving the CI improved accurate information.

  police may be reluctant to use it due to the fact ito time consuming.